Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 28 Nov 2004 20:36:24 +0300 | From | Oleg Nesterov <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/2] rcu: cosmetic, delete wrong comment, use HARDIRQ_OFFSET |
| |
Dipankar Sarma wrote: > > Hmm. I agree with Manfred. hardirq_count() <= (1 << HARDIRQ_SHIFT) > was the test I arrived at since it was most explicit - One level > of (local timer) interrupt over idle task and no softirq in between > is OK to indicate that the cpu had seen an idle task. A bigger > hardirq_count() indicates reentrant hardirq over idle task and we > are no longer safe. > > So, let's drop the HARDIRQ_OFFSET change.
Ok. I am resending these two patches in one.
Oleg. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |